Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 7876
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`§
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S OBJECTIONS
`TO THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (DKT. 213)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 7877
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Using the IP Address Previously ............................................................................ 2
`
`Required Response List .......................................................................................... 4
`
`“Consisting of” and “Based on” Claim Terms ....................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 7878
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc.,
`334 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 205 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ...................................................4
`
`Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................4
`
`In re Harnisch,
`631 F.2d 716 (CCPA 1980) .......................................................................................................5
`
`Jacoby v. Trek Bicycle Corp.,
`No. 2:11-CV-124, 2011 WL 3240445 (E.D. Tex. July 28, 2011) .............................................2
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................................4
`
`Ex parte Markush,
`1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126 (1924) ...........................................................................................5
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co.,
`875 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1989) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 636(b) ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ....................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`MPEP § 2117 ...................................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 7879
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Plaintiff AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”) hereby objects to five claim constructions issued in the
`
`above-captioned case on November 10, 2021.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Claim Construction Memorandum and Order (the “Order” or “Dkt. 213”) is clearly
`
`erroneous or contrary to law regarding five specific claim constructions: (1) “using the IP address
`
`previously;” (2) “required response list;” and (3) the “consisting of” and “based on” terms.
`
`The Court’s construction of “using the IP address previously” as indefinite is clearly
`
`erroneous because it ignores the “exchang[ed] IP addresses” disclosed in the beginning of the same
`
`limitation. The Court’s concern regarding indefiniteness is undermined by Plaintiff’s expert’s
`
`unrebutted testimony that claim 9 of the ’724 Patent recites two alternatives for IP-based
`
`transmission: (1) direct participant-to-participant IP communication; and (2) server-based IP
`
`communication, and accordingly, a POSITA would understand that “using the IP address
`
`previously” is consistent with the specification of the ’724 Patent which discloses “the server
`
`receives each network identifier. . .along with its dynamic IP address . . .”
`
`The construction of “required response list” term is clearly erroneous or contrary to law
`
`because it improperly reads in the term “manual response” with that of “required response list.”
`
`By requiring the “required response list” to mean “list of responses, one of which must be selected
`
`before the list can be cleared from the display,” renders other limitations redundant and reads in
`
`only a certain input method. The Order did not identify why the “required response list” must be
`
`“manual.”
`
`Finally, the Court’s construction of the “consisting of” and “based on” terms is clearly
`
`erroneous or contrary to the law because it improperly holds that these claim terms are Markush
`
`claims. The Order limited the claimed “consisting of” and “based on” terms to “only” certain
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 7880
`
`
`
`options, yet the claims are not written in the alternative. Because a Markush claim “recites a list
`
`of alternatively usable members,” (MPEP § 2117) and these claim terms are not written in the
`
`alternative, the Order improperly held that these claim terms are Markush claims.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A non-dispositive decision must be modified or set aside if it is “clearly erroneous or is
`
`contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
`
`Motions for reconsideration “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct
`
`manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int’l Paper
`
`Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). In considering a motion for reconsideration, the moving
`
`party must show “(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new
`
`evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent
`
`manifest injustice.” Jacoby v. Trek Bicycle Corp., No. 2:11-CV-124, 2011 WL 3240445, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. July 28, 2011).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Using the IP Address Previously1
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “using the IP address previously”
`
`refers to the previously-received IP address in the beginning of the limitation. The Order
`
`committed a clear error by rejecting Plaintiff’s proposed construction and holding this claim
`
`limitation indefinite. It was erroneous to hold that “using the IP address previously” was indefinite
`
`where the ’724 Patent claims and specification disclose that claim 9 of the ’724 Patent recites two
`
`alternatives for IP-based transmission: (1) direct participant-to-participants IP communication; and
`
`(2) server-based IP communication. Dkt. 213 at 26. While the Court acknowledged AGIS’s
`
`
`1 AGIS incorporates by reference its arguments set forth in its opening claim construction brief
`and reply claim construction brief. See Dkt. 145 at 15-16; Dkt. 166 at 5.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 7881
`
`
`
`argument that “using the IP address previously” modifies the clause “a server which then transmits
`
`data to other network participants.” Accordingly, the ’724 Patent discloses that “using the IP
`
`address previously” refers to the “exchang[ed] IP addresses.”
`
`This is supported by AGIS’s expert, who opined that a POSITA would have understood
`
`that “using the IP address previously” refers to the previously-received IP address in the beginning
`
`of the limitation “transmission of a network participant’s IP address to a server . . .” As such, the
`
`server receives the IP address for one participant and then communicates any IP-based
`
`communication directed from other participants to the one participant using the previously-
`
`received IP address for that one participant. See Dkt. 213 at 27. This is consistent with the claim
`
`language, which states:
`
`exchanging IP addresses using SMS or other digital message format between and
`among each of the network participant users so that communications between
`participants is established via IP or transmission of a network participant’s IP
`address to a server which then transmits data to other network participants using
`the IP address previously.
`
`The evidence on this issue presented by Plaintiff’s expert was unrebutted by Defendants’
`
`expert but given no weight by the Court. This was clear error. For these reasons, Plaintiff requests
`
`that the Court reverse its holding of “using the IP address previously” as indefinite.
`
`Alternatively, as Plaintiff proposed during the Markman hearing, the beginning of the
`
`claim limitation, “among each of the network participant users” be construed as “among one or
`
`more network participants” and “using the IP address previously” as “using the respective IP
`
`address previously transmitted to the server.” See Ex. 1, Claim Construction Hearing Transcript
`
`at 20:22-21:13; see also id. at 21:21-23:12; 27:15-29:4.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7882
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Required Response List2
`
`The Claim Construction Order improperly limited the “required response list,” which
`
`should have been given its plain and ordinary meaning, to a specific and narrow example from the
`
`specification. This is contrary to law. The Order limited this term to a “list of responses, one of
`
`which must be selected before the list can be cleared from the display” (Dkt. 213 at 52), stating
`
`that its construction is supported by the specification. To the contrary, the Court limited its
`
`construction to an embodiment. See, e.g., Dkt. 213 at 50 (“The specification is consistent with this
`
`understanding, disclosing an embodiment . . .”). Absent lexicography or disavowal of claim scope,
`
`it is improper to limit the claims to the preferred embodiment. Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`
`915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004). While claim terms are construed in light of the specification, departing from the plain
`
`meaning based on the specification or prosecution history can only occur in instances of
`
`lexicography or disavowal. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). The standard for lexicography is exacting. The patentee must “clearly set forth a
`
`definition of the disputed claim term” and “’clearly express an intent’ to define the term.” Id.
`
`Here, the Court does not cite to any clear definition by the patentee, nor an express intent to define
`
`the term. Nor does the Court cite to any disavowal or lexicography.
`
`By construing “required response list” to mean “list of responses, one of which must be
`
`selected before the list can be cleared from the display,” the Court renders superfluous the claim
`
`term “manual response” which the Court previously construed as “recipient-selectable response
`
`message.” See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00513-
`
`JRG, Dkt. 205 at 42 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018). Similar to the Court’s rejection of Defendants’
`
`
`2 AGIS incorporates by reference its arguments set forth in its opening claim construction brief
`and reply claim construction brief. See Dkt. 145 at 31-32; Dkt. 166 at 12-13.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 7883
`
`
`
`proposal to insert “a recipient” or “recipient’s display,” which are “covered by other claim
`
`language,” the insertion of additional limitations tends to “confuse rather than clarify claim scope.”
`
`Because the statements in the specification do not rise to the level of lexicography, this
`
`construction was clearly erroneous and contrary to law.
`
`C.
`
`“Consisting of” and “Based on” Claim Terms3
`
`The Order improperly held that the “consisting of” and “based on” claim terms are
`
`Markush claims. A Markush claim “recites a list of alternatively useable members.” In re
`
`Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126,
`
`127 (1924). Accordingly, a listing of “specified alternatives” within a Markush claim is referred
`
`to as a Markush group or Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc., 334 F.3d
`
`1274, 1280-81 (Fed. Cir. 2003). While AGIS does not dispute that “consisting of” may define a
`
`Markush grouping for a closed group, such is not the case here where the claim is not written in
`
`the alternative. A Markush claim requires that the claim recite “alternatively usable members,”
`
`yet these claim terms recite, for example, “consisting of: a position of the participant symbol,
`
`positions of the one or more vehicle symbols, and a portion of the map displayed on the display
`
`of the mobile device.” Similarly, the claim terms “based on at least one criterion selected from
`
`the group consisting of: (1) passage of time, and (2) movement of the first vehicle;” and “based on
`
`the participant selection data, performing one or more acts selected from the group consisting of:
`
`sending updated vehicle data to the first mobile device corresponding to the vehicle, sending
`
`updated participant data to the second mobile device corresponding to the participant, and sending
`
`a message to the first mobile device corresponding to the vehicle” do not recite “alternatively
`
`usable members.” Rather, multiple criterion or acts can be selected, not alternatives. Further, as
`
`
`3 AGIS incorporates by reference its arguments set forth in its opening claim construction brief
`and reply claim construction brief. See Dkt. 145 at 37-40, 42-43; Dkt. 166 at 15.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 7884
`
`
`
`noted by the Court, the claim recites “comprising.” Dkt. 213 at 64. Accordingly, the claims and
`
`specification support the argument that these terms should not be construed as Markush groups.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Because the Claim Construction Order improperly limited the scope of the terms at issue,
`
`the Court should construe (1) “using the IP address previously” according to its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning; (2) “required response list” according to its plain and ordinary meaning; and
`
`(3) “consisting of” and “based on” should not be construed as Markush claims.
`
`Dated: November 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
` Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 7885
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 10 of 11 PagelD #: 7885
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 237 Filed 11/24/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 7886
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 24, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`8
`
`